Norma Heredia v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC
13-16-00129-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 27, 2017Background
- Norma Heredia slipped on an unknown dark, sticky fluid while pushing a cart in the women’s department of a Wal‑Mart and was injured; she did not know how long the substance had been on the floor.
- After the fall Heredia waited until a Wal‑Mart associate (Elizabeth Sanchez) arrived; Sanchez cleaned the spill; Heredia initially declined to file a report or seek an ambulance, then later filed a store report and sought medical attention.
- Store management photographed the location and requested surveillance video; asset‑protection testified no camera captured the incident.
- Heredia sued Wal‑Mart for premises liability, alleging Wal‑Mart had constructive knowledge of the hazard and arguing Wal‑Mart’s practices (including cleanup/disposal and not using computerized surveillance) resulted in spoliation and a failure to preserve evidence.
- Wal‑Mart moved for a no‑evidence summary judgment on the knowledge element; the trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed Heredia’s claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive notice (knowledge) | Heredia: prior Wal‑Mart spills and store practices show Wal‑Mart knew of recurring spill risks and thus had constructive notice of the condition here | Wal‑Mart: no evidence Wal‑Mart caused or knew of this spill or that it existed long enough to give notice | Court: No evidence of temporal proof; Heredia failed to show the spill existed long enough for constructive notice — summary judgment affirmed |
| Due process (notice/hearing) | Heredia: insufficient notice/opportunity to be heard on summary judgment | Wal‑Mart: complied with Rule 166a(c); hearing was noticed and Heredia timely responded | Court: Wal‑Mart gave 21 days’ notice; Heredia responded within schedule — no due process violation |
| Spoliation (failure to preserve sample/evidence) | Heredia: Wal‑Mart’s cleanup/disposal prevented proof and created a duty to preserve evidence once a claim was foreseeable | Wal‑Mart: spill was cleaned in ordinary course before store had notice of a claim; Heredia initially declined to file a report or ambulance | Court: No duty to preserve arose because Wal‑Mart lacked notice a claim was likely; destruction was in ordinary course — no spoliation remedy |
| Duty to use surveillance (alternative design) | Heredia: Wal‑Mart should have used computerized video surveillance to detect/prevent hazards | Wal‑Mart: no legal duty to employ specific surveillance technology; alternative design evidence alone insufficient to show notice | Court: Knowing of a safer alternative does not prove the owner knew of the condition; no duty to use such system established |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal‑Mart Stores v. Reece, 81 S.W.3d 812 (Tex. 2002) (time‑notice rule for constructive notice in slip‑and‑fall cases)
- CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen, 15 S.W.3d 97 (Tex. 2000) (owner’s knowledge of safer alternative does not equal knowledge of hazardous condition)
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Johnson, 106 S.W.3d 718 (Tex. 2003) (duty to preserve evidence arises only when litigation is reasonably foreseeable)
- Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Aldridge, 438 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. 2014) (spoliation review framework and trial court’s role)
- Nassar v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 508 S.W.3d 254 (Tex. 2017) (standard for reviewing no‑evidence summary judgment)